Elections! and very little power to people.... just one button?

This is time the worlds biggest democracy to lead the path to improvements of the political system.

Correct elections and political environment is my birth right. People have been fooled by their boundaries of their beliefs to think that they are doing all things in their right and even the most politically aware class of people have not thought of the problems we face in today's world.

The current system of elections is the major part of this problem. This has really limited political expression of people. It has harmed almost all the stakeholders of politics. Voters, candidates, election authorities, media, governing bodies, as well as personal relations of candidates. This is biggest reason in the system so far that has failed to encourage honest and capable people to serve the public and take it as a career with head held high.

The election and government system was developed long time back when the practicality was the biggest hurdle to design a efficient system. The method devised was called 'VOTE'. Everyone has only one vote and the book say every one has to chose one as their representative. Though people would want more than simply choosing their representative, all the other needs were blatantly ignored giving a lot of room to anarchy. Well, what about people's right to make their views heard on political agenda? what about having the right leader of the government body? What about allowing flexibility to the voters to empower them, to ensure that their vote really counts and make a real contribution to the outcome of the election?
All these important questions were ignored. Later these limitations of the system were exploited by anti-social elements to fool people, media, candidates, election systems and grab the power.

All I get to chose now is one candidate, whether there are 2 people contesting or 20, whether I know 4 - 5 best candidates or even all of them. It is like giving a hammer to someone to fix any kind of problem. After so many ears, when you have only hammer to fix any situation, all the situation look like nails.

If you go to write an exam and all the questions need elaborate thinking and descriptive writeup, and instead of a pen, you get a stamp! What would you do? Will you believe that the stamp will enable you write this paper? Of course not. Gone are the days when people had limited knowledge about their problems and political situations. Gone are the days when deriving the outcome of election was designed by practical limitations of human counting limits and mainly focused to get the result by childishly easy method. Whether of not this method would give enough right to the voter was seldom considered. Gone are the days when people could trust candidates to do justice to people after they have elected someone.

To put in simple terms: the current election system doesn't stop the worst candidate win elections. A Condorcet loser can win the elections in the current system. I want my right to stop the worst candidates bending this system in their favor. I want my power to fully evaluate the candidates and exercise my right without these limitations that are now things of past and must be burried.

P.S. If you think current system is the only voting system, do read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

Changed times!

Times have changed. Few years back, I thought people will be discussing these idea lot more. But the technology awareness was still lacking and somehow I did not see much response.
It could be because of many things. I would have missed something obviously. But the point is that now I do see lot of enthusiasm and participation by general public.

There are many people writing comments and articles at least about political issues, and tricks people observe in the elections.... thanks to recent controversies.
People have started using technology to collaborate more. People are booking taxis over calls and phone apps. Newspaper websites and as usual youtube videos are seeing comment-wars! Citizen journalism is on the rise, various organizations are making their mark despite difficulties and hostilities they face.

Ultimately, I am hoping people collaborate better and work on improving the political scenario here, specially the election system.

News and post election discussions

The news channels cover all sorts of debates and the politicians quote the various things analyze the results as they want.

The phonomenon of the MNS Shivsena vote split is very hot one in the discussions. Media has been madly pursuing this point to the level I find it improper. There is one more friend of mine who says that Raj has to come back to Shivsena to make the things better for all.

That is the power of system that restricts the democracy.

To explain my point let me give you a similar point of what one needs to spell Prashant as. There are people who think it should be spelled as 'Prashant' and some think it should be 'Prashanth'. Is there any one single right way? No. I think it can be spelled as प्रशांत which is the only exact representation in many languages.

Now think of this question. Whether there should be one standard FORCED? If you have any other opinion, should you still fall pray to the system ?

There can be different degrees of compromise, one can agree to. Similarly there can be different level of importance one can attach to any concern. When there are differences, the system that is used to reach a consensus is important.

Do we have a system that is capable of doing a fair job?

There was time, when the system was new and when it was designed and implemented, it was as per the needs of that time. Now it is time, we catch up and make the system evolved to meet the needs of the changing times.

Here, I am not going to comment whether any political party is right or not. But I want to explain why it is extremely important to discuss the point that the system needs to change. There is no one looking into such issues, and it's only us the people of India need to call it out and execute the programme. Just following the old systems without questioning would mean no development.

MNS has a stand that they want to have their own political party and run the governments as per their policies. The Shivsena has the problem that due to this new party, they are on the recieving end of the initial blows of this change. Shivsena has also accused that vote to MNS means vote to their main competitors, as the split in the votes would cause Shivsena to lose their strength.

Is it fair for a party to say that they must vote for someone, because otherwise it will benefit their competitor?
Doesn't this look like blackmailing of the individual voters? What would the meaning left to the word democracy then?

By democracy, I would expect more power to the people, having a powerful say of the people in the politics and the representatives of people.

The very first point I can see is that the current system of voting does not give enough power to people.

What do I have as a voter? Just one vote. There are many people who are contesting the elections. I need to analyze them and then just make one verdict that says ok, I am fine having this person as the representative of my constituency.

I have no power over what the elected persons do after the election. I have no mechanism to understand who is financing the election expenses, what the political parties have to do with the candidates, or on which points what the candidate is saying or going to do.

After we understand this, and get this changed, it will really enable good people to participate and phenomenon of misuse of the system by the bad people will gradually cease as the confidence of people gain confidence in the system.

Need of "more access to people to enter this system"

adding to the recent posts, we have a few discussions in the news recently.

It was a nice surprise to see Sharad Pawar mention this point, in an interview to a Marathi channel: Central control of political parties not right. This was mostly directed to the Gandhis in the Congress (I).
However, almost same thing happens when it comes to Sharad Pawar's own family, on a high level.

Almost everywhere, we see that political parties do influence the election process more than necessary. We do see many

as we find it here:(The Economic Times) Politics not a bad place to be in: Rahul

“Unless you are from a political family or have a significant last name or able
to bribe people, it is very difficult to enter”

However he also made the statement:

“What I can do is provide more access to people to enter this system. But I
believe I am not in a place to make you think”

So, he understands the importance of reducing the hurdles for the common people to enter politics. However, to make people aware about the politics is a still left unattended.
To enable this awarenes, we do need electoral reforms. We need the measures that will enable a better system of electing people and policy implementation and auditing system. Make an political environment to curb the issues like thoes in the post ...people afraid of actively participating in politics.

Now that the politician have started discussing it openly, we should suggest better electoral systems, that will enable good people enter into this profession and (as a need of this time), "still stay safe"

Why people are afraid of actively participating in the politics?

Careerwise, there is not much scope for honest people, when it comes to living a politicians life. The career path is not very attractive. So, this is not a life long job. It will mean a lot of financial sacrifice for one person. In favour of making a cost efficient government mechanism, it should be that way. I suggest the way that large number of people come forward and spare some time of their career towards government. This may sound a little counterproductive, as one person having entire career in politics will have better focused abilities than the hundred people who would practice this career for only few years. However, with better processes in place and working on transperancy, we can do even better than the one person at one's best.

I see these concerns as the prohibiting factors for a person to take up this profession, without the unnecessary worries.

1. Public perception: There is no recognition of the profession as people percieve this as the evil thing. Sadly, as of now, public in large, is not aware that they must change this. There is only the pleasure of cursing politicians, but no contructive suggesstions put forth.I see this as a profession, though short term, that people can take and be recognised for having that ability and warmth for the people.
2. Individual opinion: Every individual's opinion is also different. It may be wrong to assume that all people will have the same insight of all the candidates and have empathy to the election process to the same extent. There are people who are not at all understood, and there are people, who are very well learnt. There's nothing on the ballot paper or the electronic voting machins, that can record this. The aspiring candidates have no idea how some individual will percieve one's candidature. This hampers the confidence level of the aspirant.
3. The system: The system is a very important part of the people's perception. If we can find the way to boost the confidence in people and in politicians about the better functioning system, then there will be more people coming forward.the people believe that the system works in favour of the cunning politicians. So, if they participate, and knowingly or unknowingly, if they pose as the threat to such people's benefits, they will face dire consequences.The system doesn't support friendly polls. One person's candidature is a threat to all others to the extent that they find themselves nothing but enemies. Is that really what we wanted?

See these questions and find your opinion:

1. If someone decides to run for elections, does other candidates's ability change?
2. If someone decides to run for elections, does other candidates's policies change?
3. If someone wins the elections by close margin does that mean the defeated candidate is a bad person?
4. Let's say you know someone who's a good candidate, but as he may not be having wide public understanding, you think that he will not attract many votes. Would you vote for the next best person, that you think will have wider public acceptace ?
5. Have you heard of logic that some candidate ensured that some other candidate also runs the elections so as to get the benefit of vote splitting to someone else?

So when we see all these adversities, good people will need a lot of will power to flow against the waves. There are such people, but few. We may be making progress, but at what pace? Are we satisfied with that?
We must make the changes, that will stabilize the system, encourage good people to participate, and enable friendly events.

Offtopic? not really? on Rule 49-0 of "The Conduct of Elections Rules", 1961

While I do want to talk about political system, including the reforms for the current voting system, I was confused if I want to take up the 49-O in this series or not.

(Don't worry, I am not a politician!... read on)

First things first... if you still just know this topic from the chain mails you may have got. Beware of the hoaxes....... I suggest, do read http://www.49-o.info/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49-O

As per wikipedia, "A hoax has been circulating which claims that if the '49-O' votes more than those of the winning candidate, then that poll will be canceled and will have to be re-polled. Furthermore, it claims that the contestants will be banned and they cannot contest the re-polling for their life time."

Obviously, this is not true (as of current implementation). The current implementation will just ensure that bogus voting, (someone else impersonating you to vote) will be difficult. This way, you can protect your right and save the system from being cheated by cunning politicians.

But all that did awaken people about their rights and some groups would try to get something implemented on similar lines. To some extent, this may help.


Why 'to some extent'? Ofcourse that will not ensure us a good government. That will just ensure that the criminal as well as dishonest politicians will face new challenges.

Election is meant to be a process for CHOOSING the right candidate, and not for 'NOT CHOOSING'.

This will be particularly effective where the criminals have completely taken over the political space. If all the candidates available have criminal background, it will be difficult for the honest people to contest the election. Sometimes, the nexus of the criminal politicians with the system will be huge challenge. ONLY for such cases, 49-O empowerment would help.


However, there are still a lot more measures that must be taken to ensure better government. Hence we are talking about Democrary 2.0

We need such reforms, that when implemented properly, will encourage only honest people to contest the elections and there will be absolutely no need of 49-O on the ground level. Till that time comes, we may need the better implementation of 49-O to keep the criminals away from government.

----
REFERENCES:

Official reference:
I'd really like to provide you the official document link http://eci.nic.in/ElectoralLaws/HandBooks/MANUAL_OF_LAW_VOL_II.pdf but unfortunately, this takes ages to download the document

Meanwhile, you may refer these :
http://www.49-o.info/
http://49-o.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49-O

Existing system - political party

The system of running a government, the laws, people's practices and democratic practices..... this all should be optimized for the new age. We need to run the government as efficiently and transparently as possible.

When I look at the elements as listed in http://evolvingfromdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-democracy-is-working-now.html
We have these things:

1. politicians
2. political parties
3. voting
4. democracy process authorities

I do see that the element 'political party' have got a lot of responsibilities, which was not called for.
The system was designed around it, so there are a lot of 'rituals' that we have to carry out at various processes.

The symptoms that show the problems with the system:

1. No political party is able to get the clear majority, causing unnecessary instability
2. Political parties forge various groups that tread with each other and forster malpractices
3. Political parties forming their diplomacy based on wrong policies (may be 'enemy of the enemy is a friend' or to keep their major competitor away from the power)
4. No responsibility borne by the political parties for their misbehavior.
5. Increased complexity in the democratic processes and overheads for managing party leadership, party discipline, informal group-ism
6. Lack of transparency in the party operations
7. Individual candidates not able to relate their policies of the local issues with the party policies, sometimes, failing to manage the conflict

These are only the problems and overheads we have to take the burden of. The disadvantages are many

1. Governments with different parties not collaborating with eachother
2. Government changing its policies implemented by earlier governments led by competing parties, just for the sake of rivalry and showing them as failure.
3. Use of influence on the independent authorities e.g. president, governors, police or other forces, to trouble other governments led by competing parties.
4. Candidates taking incorrect approaches to impress the party leadership to seek advantages.
5. Sometimes, fostering corruption under the name of party integrity or discipline.

Some advantages I am able to think of:

1. Focused development, if the party leadership is competent and honest, and the government is a single party majority one. This has a few points helped (for good or bad) in the initial years of the independence.
2. Support for the new candidates.

So, surely the disadvantages are over-weighing the advantages. Also the people have learned ways to manipulate the system. The democratic system is not able to address such issues due to lack of the responsibilities attached to the parties.
The political parties are given undue importance in the democratic processes. We could have better arranged the system around policies much more tightly, rather than giving the parties the freedom to work irresponsibly.